I disagree. I think you can be a "true" scientist and believer. There are many--past and present. I would not wait to get saved/born again. You never know when you're going to die. After you're saved/born again what used to be "fun" is no longer. You don't want to be "bad". You are a new creation with a new spirit/soul. I have no desire to drink, smoke, do drugs, eat bad, do anything wrong, or be lazy. I want to do my best for Him. I get my greatest joy from Him.
I disagree. I think you can be a "true" scientist and believer. There are many--past and present. I would not wait to get saved/born again. You never know when you're going to die. After you're saved/born again what used to be "fun" is no longer. You don't want to be "bad". You are a new creation with a new spirit/soul. I have no desire to drink, smoke, do drugs, eat bad, do anything wrong, or be lazy. I want to do my best for Him. I get my greatest joy from Him.
Some have crazy pasts, some were boring. The crazy ones are still crazy only now they're "crazy for Jesus". The boring ones are usually still boring.
So are you going to provide me funding for discovery of God and angels, I believe they are about 500 billion light years away? I will be waiting for my $10 billion dollars at least because you really must discover this.
You only try to discover if you first assume that it falls under the field of science. I don't think I can make it any simpler, but I'm sure you can continue playing with words.
Peace be unto you
Oh dear, you really don't get it do you?
There is no evidence to make it worthwhile looking scientifically for god and angels.
You're still wrong: the evidence that it's worth looking for falls under the field of science - there must be something that indicates it's worth a scientific enquiry.
startender
Registered Senior Member
What the hell. I'll weight in on this discussion since I need 20 posts to be permitted to post links . . .
Once you understand the nature and purpose of religion and the ultimate goal its propagators aspire to, the subjugation of science to presumed beliefs will be found to be merely a means to an end. Religionists do not seek to ignore nor to devour reason but to use it selectively to deceive others just as in using it selectively they have managed to deceive themselves that it can be used selectively to serve their whims and lend legitimacy to their cherished beliefs. Their objective is not to simply put an end to reason, the means by which the rational determine right from wrong and differentiate love for what can and should be from hatred for those with the vision to dream it and the devotion to make it real. Their hope is that you will give it up, just as they have, freely, willingly, without a fight or so much as a whimper.
The secret they are trying to hide from you and that they have succeeded in hiding from themselves is that life has no value apart from your desire to live it, no meaning apart from your success in defining it and no purpose apart from your passion to pursue it.
They have created god in their own image, the mindless monster, they have demonstrated through their contempt for reason, they aspire to be. They want reality to conform to their fear of their own inadequacy not through any effort of their own but by beseeching you to make it conform for them. Then in their self-degenerated stupor they wonder how we can despise them when they have made themselves despicable through disregard for their own potential and self-contempt for their own rationally.
They have made a science of the art of logical absurdity and self-deception. Those who have mastered the art do not seek to dismiss evolution but to reverse the process, just as they seek to reverse causality and create a creator of the universe from which a being with the capacity to create must first evolve. Those who have chosen only to be followers of such leaders are guilty by association only of seeking the unearned and undeserved, something for nothing from their self-generated self-perpetuated self-aggrandizing almighty lie in the sky.
Religion has never been about understanding how the pieces fit but about hammering them into place in an attempt to make them conform to their preconceived ill-conceived notions, not of what reality could and should be but what they would like it to be in spite of impossibility because of their frustration with an inability aggravated by the refusal to conform to what is possible within the framework and laws which govern reality.
This thread clearly demonstrates that neither Mr. Science nor anyone else can be friend or foe to those who have devoted their lives to doing battle and waging war against reality and thus themselves. Then knowing who your friends are (no less than who/what exists) can prove to be as much of a science as anything else, as is the art of perceptually based, logically restrained, non-contradictory rational thinking.
Once you understand the nature and purpose of religion and the ultimate goal its propagators aspire to, the subjugation of science to presumed beliefs will be found to be merely a means to an end. Religionists do not seek to ignore nor to devour reason but to use it selectively to deceive others just as in using it selectively they have managed to deceive themselves that it can be used selectively to serve their whims and lend legitimacy to their cherished beliefs. Their objective is not to simply put an end to reason, the means by which the rational determine right from wrong and differentiate love for what can and should be from hatred for those with the vision to dream it and the devotion to make it real. Their hope is that you will give it up, just as they have, freely, willingly, without a fight or so much as a whimper.
The secret they are trying to hide from you and that they have succeeded in hiding from themselves is that life has no value apart from your desire to live it, no meaning apart from your success in defining it and no purpose apart from your passion to pursue it.
They have created god in their own image, the mindless monster, they have demonstrated through their contempt for reason, they aspire to be. They want reality to conform to their fear of their own inadequacy not through any effort of their own but by beseeching you to make it conform for them. Then in their self-degenerated stupor they wonder how we can despise them when they have made themselves despicable through disregard for their own potential and self-contempt for their own rationally.
They have made a science of the art of logical absurdity and self-deception. Those who have mastered the art do not seek to dismiss evolution but to reverse the process, just as they seek to reverse causality and create a creator of the universe from which a being with the capacity to create must first evolve. Those who have chosen only to be followers of such leaders are guilty by association only of seeking the unearned and undeserved, something for nothing from their self-generated self-perpetuated self-aggrandizing almighty lie in the sky.
Religion has never been about understanding how the pieces fit but about hammering them into place in an attempt to make them conform to their preconceived ill-conceived notions, not of what reality could and should be but what they would like it to be in spite of impossibility because of their frustration with an inability aggravated by the refusal to conform to what is possible within the framework and laws which govern reality.
This thread clearly demonstrates that neither Mr. Science nor anyone else can be friend or foe to those who have devoted their lives to doing battle and waging war against reality and thus themselves. Then knowing who your friends are (no less than who/what exists) can prove to be as much of a science as anything else, as is the art of perceptually based, logically restrained, non-contradictory rational thinking.
On a political scale, where the premise of the thread title actually holds, the reason is that the power of both systems depends on their authority to issue proclamations on the nature of the universe. These authorities are incompatible, and so the two magisteria cannot get along.
'worth a scientific enquiry'? So there 'must be something'... and what does this 'something' tell you?.... Oh.... its worthy of scientific inquiry- Well are you trying to discover the 'something' which led you to belive that it is 'worthy of scientific inquiry' or are trying to find SOMETHING about the 'something' that led you to believe that it is 'worthy of scientific inquiry'? In other words an assumption about the SOMETHING which is not known from the 'something' which is known (upon which you base your 'worth of scientific enquiry'.
Anyways, I'm not going to waste any more time...
Peace be unto you
startender
Registered Senior Member
So I guess Einstein was just an idiot then eh?
Having failed to grasp the relevance, I suppose the ability to draw such a conclusion must be confined to the reference frame of the observer . . . relatively speaking, of course.
ok maybe the way i put it meant it that way, but while all people open their eyes to this world thinking stuff falling to the ground when released is natural, many open and closed their eyes on homosexuality not being naturalistic.
it was not naturalistic, you didn't know that?
a round earth were not naturalistic at one point.
and beware, if you say they were still naturalistic even if we thought they were not, then things we say now aren't naturalistic may be so, like religion or god or flying spaghetti monsters, and hence you render any usage of anything being naturalistic or not at any time useless in any argument.
that is just soooo wrong and twisted it makes no sense.
how do we know what truly is god's will? doesn't science overwrite its previous findings more than often?
it is just bloody irrelevant
god is not, a religions' assertions of god are.
lol good question..
it's the pride of discovering -finding out- about evolution, about your origin, the satisfaction that it is YOU who are able to reveal the great mystery of your existence, that keeps atheists as such IMO..
while creationism, takes away the great question, tells you you're not able to answer it(spoilsit by handing it out to you), and tells you to play along with the rest of the little matters, many people don't accept that well, or find a self produced answer more satisfactory, makes them feel higher than the rest who just took the answer given to them, makes them feel like the grown ups who're cut out to withstand the responsibility and grieve associated with the "real" answer, it's when a kid enters the realm of grownups by being told santa doesn't exist.
it's the pride..the one that's one of the seven deadly sins:itold:
Once again: what makes you think homosexuality isn't natural?
Balls.
The fact that it wasn't known didn't mean it wasn't natural(istic) [whatever you mean by "naturalistic"].
Wrong again. God, being god, isn't subject to science, and if he makes the rules then science can't find them.that is just soooo wrong and twisted it makes no sense.
how do we know what truly is god's will? doesn't science overwrite its previous findings more than often?
it is just bloody irrelevant
Really? Aren't all statements and claims about god made by humans? That's all we have of god to go on...
Then your opinion is wrong.
Also wrong.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
To some extent that is true, but scientific theories have no supernatural elements. To say "I believe in science, save that I replace their naturalistic explanation with this supernatural element" is very much to say that the scientific theory is wrong. The two then have very different implications. If god directed our evolution, for example, then this is it. If random mutation did it, then it is very much certain that we will continue to evolve, and this "humanity" of ours is in no sense a final form. Indeed, it is entirely possible that we will evolve into an unintelligent species of primate, if the environment favored the loss of intelligence...whereas it is very difficult to imagine why God would evolve intelligence into us and then take it away.
The curious thing is why God mimics random chance so that His changes are so often so poorly designed. Human knees for example? Prone to injury, same with our backs--they are not well designed for bipedal locomotion. Few engineers working from scratch would design a bipedal robot using the system that God chose, yet the design makes more sense if you imagine we evolved randomly, as then the design flaws are just a reflection the fact that the process has no true design.
Rather than build a durable life form, nature has fragile life forms hat procreate in great numbers, which sours futher evolution is random chance is at work (since more copies of DNA mean more room for mutations), but it is very hard on the individual, who has to live a fragile existence and suffer the deleterious effects that most mutations have (when they have any effect at all). As a strategy for God, though, who does not need mutation to occur randomly, there is really no need to pursue the numbers game.
Similarly, why do so many mutations have no effect? If they are random, it makes sense, not all our DNA codes for proteins. If they are directed, why does God mutate DNA purposefully, but to no effect.
It seems like God is hiding his hand by making himself look random. That's fine, but thee is clear evidence that suggests randomness as a result, and so it is strange that taking that inference and positing random mutations occur is somehow just as much an assumption as "God did it."
That is true, but that does not negate the fact that "God directed human evolution" is a supernaturalistic theory, and for that reason it's not science. Moreover, if one believes in God directed evolution, then one must believe that the science is wrong. It may "appear" to be right because God is mimicking random mutation, but in fact the science is in fact an incorrect theory of the world.
There's nothing philosophically wrong with that position. It is entirely valid, even though it not something that one should teach in a science class. (Then again, assuming it were true, the alternative is to teach something in science class that is false.) My point is that I think more people are Intelligent Design proponents than realize it. I think most people think they believe in the science, but really don't and think God guides the process.
Value conflicts. Science exclusively values truth above all else. Religion exclusively values psychological satiation above all else. The only time when they can "be friends" is when Religion values psychological satiation above all else EXCEPT truth. What that would likely entail is using science to set up some kind of religion that maximally satiates its congregation without invoking non-truth.
You are more than welcome to prove to me that something is random- I believe no one can prove randomness exists or does not exist (similar to the concept of God).
First note that I said compliment- doesn't mean they would be the same... Secondly the axioms are different- like you said science doesn't have anything to do with supernatural- but all the evidence is still science- all one has to do is take the evidence presented by science and apply it ot 'God directed'- which would work. The moment you introduce God- its not science anymore- but this doesn't mean the rest is not- because science is still valid as long as all of the evidence has the same basic flow...
In essence 'random mutations' and 'god directed' are alternate hypothesis- both unprovable- Scientists consider 'random' as a valid scientific answer because of their axiom, but that is their own choice, it doesn't really mean anything in terms of evidence for it.
Peace be unto you
i'm not saying it isn't, i'm saying at one point in history it was not.
then can you say about a certain thing that it isn't natural?
because it might be so and you didn't discover it yet.
see now you're not making any sense, why can't science find god's rules?
whatever, are they falsifiable or not?
lol you're funny
Exactly: what makes you think that?
What?
Because god himself isn't detectable by science.
Nope.
I wish you were.lol you're funny
because at a certain point,it wasn't accepted by the community, including the scientific one.
give me something that is not natural.
his rules are. and that's what science studies.Because god himself isn't detectable by science.
then you don't know what you're talking about.
you're THAT clueless, not to see the sarcasm?